Support broad for public option.

I have Medicare.
Just purchased the same medigap policy DH has had for years. (He's older)

I'm jus asking why if the Senate proposes that states can opt out of an option why can't a state opt out of private insurance?
We got single payer passed twice in California but it was vetoed by the governor.

Third time was the charm for safe staffing by acuity with ratios determining the maximum number of patients a nurse can legally be assigned.
I think the next governor mat sign a bill for a single excellent standard of care for all Californians.IF congress doesn't pass something that precludes it.

First of all, the "opt-out" for states is a joke. If a sate were to "opt-out," its citizens would still be responsible for paying taxes that support the public option even though they would not be able to use the plan. Makes as much sense as paying into Social Security, but "opting out"of benefits when one reaches retirement age. No governor or state legislature in its right mind is going to go that route. Talk about political suicide.

Secondly, I still don't understand your comment about states opting out of private insurance. No one is obligated by federal law (yet) to purchase priate insurance against their will, so I don't understand what you mean. Some employers require their employees to participate in a health plan, but one is free to change jobs if that is not to his/her liking. Private insurance is just that. It is a private business that individuals choose to purchase.

Do you mean that states should not allow private insurance companies to do business?

How about states having the right to create a healthcare plan?

http://www.calnurses.org/media-cente...l.html?print=t

What is there to prevent that from being done, other than existing obligations to participate in Medicare and Medicaid that may make it cost-prohibitive for states to offer their own health plans?

I'd much rather see this issue addressed on a state level. It's far more appropriate (Constitutionally) and in terms of crafting plans that are affordable and responsive to the needs of the citizens. A one-size-fits-all federal approach will be good for no-one.

I live in NE, where we are represented in the Senate by Ben Nelson, a Democrat with decades of experience in the insurance industry. He has repeatedly stated that he will not support a "universal" federal plan, for just that reason, that the people of NE have health care needs, access issues and expenses that are vastly different than citizens of other states, and a single plan will not adequately address those differences.

The real question is whether health care is a privilege and right of national citizenship.

Reform is a national issue d/t 14th Amendment due process and citizenship concerns.

Congress has a clear right under the commerce clause to regulate health care and health care finance under the commerce clause.

Legal experts debunk conservative media's claim that health reform proposals are unconstitutional

Media Matters? Could you find a more biased source? We can go tit-for-tat with opposing liberal/conservative "experts" on the Constitutionality of mandatory, government-sponsored health care. I suspect that will play out in our court system in the not-too-distant future.

Congress may have the power to regulate the insurance and health care industries, just as they regulate other industries. But that is a far cry from forcing citizens to engage in commerce that they don't wish to engage in (ie purchasing health care coverage they don't want.) Can you name any other industry that citizens are forced to participate in against their will? Auto insurance desn't count, because driving is voluntary. Living is not.

You mention citizenship concerns. How about you address the valid concerns of American citizens who don't want to fund the health care of the millions of aliens in this country illegally?

As for health care being a right because it is a necessity of life: Arguably food and shelter are more pressing necessities since going a few days without one or the other will likely cause death. We have programs in place to provide these dire necessities to those unable to provide for themselves. These programs such as food assistance and government housing DO NOT extend to the entire population of America. Would food be cheaper for all if bought in bulk by the Federal Government and distributed according to a massive bureaucracy? It might be, but no American will accept that. We want freedom of choice and control over our own preferences and purchases. Those who need government assistance receive the basic necessities thru the good graces of the taxpaying American public. If they want or need more, they find a way to procure it on their own, without placing a prohibitive burden on the taxpayers. And as one who purchases my own food, my choices are not limited by government rules. If I want steak and I can afford it, I have it. If I want to eat frugally and spend my money on something else, I can, without government intrusion.

Same basic principles apply to government-paid housing. It's provided by taxpayer funds to those who can't provide for themselves. Basic housing. Nothing fancy or luxurious. Meanwhile, I can live anywhere I choose and can afford. No government panels telling me I must have X number of square feet and X number of rooms. That I help to provide for others' housing needs DOES NOT LIMIT MY CHOICES, nor should it with healthcare.

Show me a similar health care bill that provides basic coverage to those who can't provide on their own, without a massive bureaucracy that limits everyone else's choices, and maybe we'll be on common ground.

"You know what's worse than being sick and not having health insurance? Having to sit through the Lieberman filibuster that kept it from you."


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1..._n_338113.html

[quote=Jolie;3949343]Media Matters? Could you find a more biased source?

might i add one more irrelevant comment?
i soooo agree, about media matters being biased.
i wanted to say this on another thread and chose not to.
but i don't find media matters any more credible than heritage or amer thinker.

it is getting increasingly more challenging to find neutral sources, which is what i prefer IF it is truth i am seeking.

leslie

We have a much larger health care bureaucracy than the "socialized" systems. (20% of our health care dollars for administration vs 8% on the high side in other countries.) Did you know that Germany has over 200 separate 'sickness' funds. Its all private sector/completely portable but NONPROFIT. Read the book. Its well worth the 2-3 hours to see how other countries have attacked this problem and what they have achieved.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2101778_3.html

Choice needs to reconsidered. No one is forced to go to the doctor. But when we are sick we are all patients. It is legitimate to mandate financial participation in the health care system. (IMO all the immigrant, housing and food arguments are nothing more than red herrings designed to distract us from the central issue. "Are we as a country going to assure that all citizens have access to affordable effective health care.?)